Ensuring the Public Trust 2015
Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures
Ensuring the Public Trust 2015
Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures
Sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society
Ensuring the Public Trust
Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures Among the many roles state legislatures play—debating public policy, enacting laws, and appropriating funds—is the fundamental responsibility to oversee government operations and ensure that public services are delivered to citizens in an effective and efficient manner. This accountability role is a critical part of our constitutional system of separation of powers and is essential to ensuring the trust that citizens place in government.
To help meet this oversight responsibility, most state legislatures have created specialized offices that conduct research studies and evaluate state government policies and programs. These studies, called program evaluations, policy analyses, and performance audits, address whether agencies are properly managing public programs and identify ways to improve these programs and cut government costs.
This report summarizes information about these legislative program evaluation offices, which vary greatly in size, organization, and activities, just as their states and parent state legislatures do. The report is based on a nationwide survey of legislative program evaluation offices conducted by the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NPES) in the summer of 2014. It expands on similar surveys published in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 and provides detailed information about offices’ structure, staff, products, activities, working relationships with their legislatures, and assessments of NLPES services.
While some states have more than one office that conducts evaluations, others have no evaluation unit. Generally, those that responded to the survey have active legislative performance evaluation offices.
Part A of this report summarizes information on the 39 offices that responded to the survey and conduct program evaluations.
Part B of the report profiles the respondents and provides contact information for them as well as for states that do not have legislative audit or evaluation offices.
Special thanks to James Barber of Mississippi PEER; Rachel Hibbard of Hawaii’s Office of the Auditor; and Jenny Wilhelm, Susan Dusoe, and Kathy McGuire of OPPAGA for their work in this survey effort.
Wayne Kidd, 2014-2015 NLPES Chair Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General
Part A ‒ Summary of Survey Results
This section discusses the history, organizational placement and direction, professional standards, staff and resources, and products of legislative program evaluation offices; the communication strategies offices use to maximize their value to their legislatures; their legislative climate; and an assessment of NLPES and NCSL services.
History Most legislative program evaluation offices have been in operation for many years. Ninety-two percent have served their legislatures more than 10 years, with most offices having served for more than 25 years. Four state legislatures have created program evaluation units within the past 10 years; the newest was created by the Alaska Legislature in 2013 to conduct performance reviews.
Three-Quarters of Offices Have Conducted Audits and Evaluations for Over 25 Years
Up to 10 years
10% 11 to 25 years More than 21% 25 years 69%
(N=39)
1 Organizational Placement and Direction The organizational placement of evaluation offices—where they fit into the legislative structure— varies substantially across the nation. In almost half of the states, program evaluation units are part of an auditor’s office. In these states, the auditor (often titled the auditor general) is typically responsible for conducting financial and compliance audits in addition to evaluation studies; and the evaluation office is generally a separate division within these offices. In about a quarter of states, evaluation offices operate as independent legislative units.1 In most of the remaining states, evaluation offices are established within a legislative oversight or other committee. Other placements include budget and fiscal offices.
Most Evaluation Offices Are Attached to Auditors’ Offices or Operate as Independent Legislative Units
Auditor's office 46%
Independent legislative unit 26%
Legislative oversight committee 13%
Legislative committee 5%
Other 10% (N=39)
Most evaluation offices report to a legislative entity. The majority report to a joint legislative committee comprised of members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In Nebraska, a unicameral state, the office reports to the single chamber. A few units report directly to legislative leadership, while others have an alternate reporting relationship such as a citizen council.
Most Offices Report to a Joint Legislative Committee
Joint legislative committee 86%
Legislative leadership 8%
Other 6% (N=36)
1 Twenty-seven offices reported that another office in their state also conducts audits, typically a state auditor that performs mainly financial audits. In many cases, these audit organizations are not part of the legislative branch and may not be closely linked to the legislative process.
2 Heads of evaluation offices are designated in numerous ways. A legislative committee designates a third of directors and legislative leadership designates a quarter. The remaining directors are appointed by both chambers of the legislature or other entities such as a commission or council.
Evaluation Directors Are Designated in Many Ways
Designated by a legislative committee 32%
Designated by legislative leadership 26%
Designated by parent organization 21%
Other 21% (N=38)
Directors’ terms of service also vary. Twenty-nine directors serve at the pleasure of the designating agency. The remaining 10 have set terms of varying length, as shown below.
Directors’ Set Terms Vary in Length
3
2 2 2
1
2 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 8 years
(N=10)
3 Professional Standards To help ensure that they produce high-quality work, offices use professional standards to guide their activities. Reflecting the organizational placement of about half of legislative evaluation offices in auditor’s offices, approximately half of offices follow Government Auditing Standards, issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. A quarter of offices use internally- developed standards and some offices use more than one set of standards. Most remaining offices have not adopted formal standards.
Many Offices Use Government Auditing Standards
GAO Yellow Book Standards 53%
Internally developed standards 26%
No formal standards 21%
Other standards 18% (N=38)
Note: Some offices use more than one set of standards.
For many offices, an important part of maintaining professional standards is participating in a review of work processes and products by professional peers. Of the 21 offices that reported undergoing a peer review, two-thirds use the National State Auditors Association to conduct the review and the remaining third receive their peer reviews through the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society.
Two-thirds of Offices Use the National State Auditors Association to Perform Their Peer Review
National Legislative NationalProgram Legislative Program Evaluation Evaluation Society 33% National Society(NLPES) (NLPES) 67% State Auditors Association (NSAA) National State Auditors Association (NSAA) (N=21)
4 Twenty-six offices use internal performance measures. The majority of these offices measure the number of reports released and recommendations implemented. Over one-third measure cost-savings, the number of legislative briefings and presentations they provide, and timeliness.
Offices Use a Variety of Internal Performance Measures
Number of reports released 77%
Number of recommendations implemented 65%
Amount of cost savings identified or achieved 46%
Number of legislative briefings or presentations 42%
Number of reports released on time 39%
Other 39% (N=26)
Note: Offices generally use more than one measure.
Offices also reported using the following other measures: . Actual office expenses compared to budget . Cost per direct audit hour . Employee satisfaction survey results . Number of rapid response reviews or memoranda completed . Number of background investigations conducted . Number of fiscal impact statements corrected and reissued . Number of programs or agencies sunsetted . Number of released reports approved/endorsed by the committee the office reports to . Number and percentage of recommendations adopted by their commission . Number and percentage of recommendations adopted by the legislature . Number of bills introduced or enacted in response to office recommendations . Number of follow-up reviews for previous evaluations completed . Number of projects on which all QA standards were met . Number of final reports delivered to legislative members and staff at least one week before committee meeting . Number of reports for which the audited agency had a minimum of 8 days to review and respond to the draft report . Number of evaluation-related presentations made outside the legislature . Number of auditors meeting minimum training hours . Percentage of respondents to training evaluation surveys who indicate meeting or exceeding expectations . Percentage of respondents to a customer satisfaction survey who give positive ratings for accuracy, availability of information, expertise, helpfulness, timeliness, and the office overall . Percentage of productive time spent on audit-related activities . Satisfactorily passing three-year peer review
5 Staff and Resources Legislative program evaluation offices vary substantially in size, reflecting the diversity among states and legislatures. While 19 offices (half) reported employing full-time financial auditors, the following analyses pertain only to evaluation staff. Most offices have 25 or fewer evaluation staff.
Almost Two-Thirds of Offices Have 25 or Fewer Program Evaluation Staff
26 to 50 staff
11 to 25 staff 24%
42%
13% Over 50 staff
21%
1 to 10 staff (N=38)
Evaluation offices have differing education requirements. A third of aggregated evaluation office staff have bachelor’s degrees, which may include certified public accountants. Over half have master’s degrees, and a few have earned doctoral degrees.
Many Staff Have Advanced Degrees
Doctoral degree 6%
Master's degree 61%
Bachelor's degree 33%
(N=36)
6 Two-thirds of aggregated evaluation staff have less than 10 years evaluation experience.
Most Staff Have Less Than 10 Years of Evaluation Experience
More than 10 years 29%
3 to 10 years 36%
Less than 3 years 35%
(N=36)
Three-quarters of staff are less than 50 years old.
Most Staff Are Under the Age of 50
32% (N=30)
26%
21%
17%
6%
20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 years years years years and older
7 Approximately half of evaluation offices are actively engaged in succession planning. Most of these offices are identifying staff likely to become managers and preparing them by providing a wide range of experience and responsibilities, such as leading large or complex projects. These offices are also working with experienced staff who will be leaving to record their knowledge and help train successors.
Offices Are Engaged in Succession Planning in Several Ways
Identify staff likely to become managers in future 94%
Provide specific training preparing staff to become managers 61%
Work with experienced staff to record their knowledge and help train successors 56%
Other 11% (N=18)
Note: Offices use more than one strategy.
8 Products Program evaluation offices serve their legislatures by producing a variety of products. Most offices conduct performance audits/evaluations of state agencies and programs as one of their primary functions. These reviews may address varying issues, including whether agencies are following legislative intent, whether programs are well managed and are producing the desired results, and whether policy alternatives could improve operations and save taxpayer money. Approximately a third of offices also conduct financial and compliance audits in addition to program evaluations.
About one-quarter of offices routinely conduct technology and IT reviews, perform short-term research, prepare budget analyses and fiscal notes, or provide outcome audits or evaluations. Many offices have some role in developing, critiquing, or validating performance measures. Offices also provide many other services. For example, How North Carolina Compares reports rankings of statistical indicators from the U.S. Census and other sources.
Offices Conduct a Variety of Activities
Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses 97%
Financial compliance audits 31%
Technology/ IT reviews 28%
Short-term policy research for members or committees 26%
Outcome audits and or evaluations focused on program outcomes 23%
Budget analyses and fiscal notes 23%
Assessments of performance measures and data 21%
Investigations 15%
Sunset reviews 13%
Cost-benefit analyses 13%
Bill drafting 10%
Background checks of appointees subject to legislative confirmation 3%
Other 28% (N=38)
Note: Most offices provided more than one answer.
9 Forty-two percent of offices reported that the type of work they perform has changed in recent years. Examples include increased quantitative analyses; producing more financial/fiscal products; conducting reviews with more of a policy analysis focus; performing other types of work such as investigations, performance measures assessment, and contract management; and increased support of legislative committees.
Offices varied in the number of evaluation reports they published last year, reflecting their differing staff sizes and responsibilities. Over half of offices published 10 or fewer reports. A small percentage of offices published more than 25 reports. Six offices produced products that were not published or were released to a restricted audience.
Half of Offices Released 10 or Fewer Reports Last Year
Up to 10 reports 53%
11 to 25 reports 39%
Over 25 reports 8%
(N=36)
Legislative evaluation reports must balance quickly conveying research results with providing sufficient information on research findings. Two-thirds of offices typically issue reports that are 25 pages or more.
Most Offices’ Reports Are Longer Than 25 Pages
Fewer than 10 pages 8%
25 pages or more 68% 11-24 24% pages
(N=38)
10 Project time varied from less than three months to more than eight months to complete. Almost half of offices generally spend six to eight months per project.
Almost Half of Offices Generally Spend 6 to 8 Months on a Project
3 to 5 months 26%
6 to 8 months 46%
More than 8 months 29%
(N=35) Offices prepare different kinds of reports to meet legislative needs. Many offices issue reports that include recommendations for legislative action. To facilitate such activity, several offices identify statutory sections that would be affected by their recommendations, and some estimate the fiscal impact of their recommendations or include draft bill language to implement them. Many offices now also benchmark program outcomes to other states or a national average and compare the effectiveness of current programs to alternatives.
Many Offices’ Reports Include Recommendations for Legislative Action
Usually/Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never
Provide recommendations for legislative action 13 13 8 2
Identify statutory sections affected by recommended legislative action 10 10 12 4
Benchmark program outcomes to other states or a national average 5 13 16 1
Compare the effectiveness of current programs to alternatives 3 11 15 6
Estimate specific fiscal impact of recommended actions 5 5 14 11
Provide draft bill language to implement recommendations 2 3 3 27
11 Two-thirds of offices follow-up to determine whether agencies have implemented report recommendations. These reviews help legislatures ensure that corrective actions result from oversight studies.
Most Offices Publish Follow-Up Studies on their Reports
Yes No 68% 32%
(N=37)
A quarter of offices annually publish compilations of recommendations that have not been implemented. Most of these publications include recommendations for both legislative and agency action; half also report on the fiscal impact of the recommendations. Legislators may consider unimplemented recommendations during their legislative session and/or mandate that agencies take corrective action to resolve identified problems.
A Quarter of Offices Issue Reports on Recommendations Not Yet Implemented
Yes 24%
No 76%
(N=38)
12 Communication Offices set their project agendas in several ways. In most states, the decision to evaluate a program is made by the legislature through provisions in bills and appropriations acts or by governing committee directives. Forty-three percent of offices also conduct some studies on their own initiative. A few offices initiate studies upon the request of the executive branch or at citizens’ behests.
Most Projects Are Initiated by Legislative Directives
Legislative directive (statutory or proviso) 76% Governing committee directive 68% Legislative committees/ legislator request 43% Self-initiated 43% Executive branch request 14% Other 5% (N=37) Note: Most offices provided more than one answer.
Offices regularly communicate with a variety of legislative stakeholders, particularly the committees they report to. Offices also typically have frequent communication with legislative and executive fiscal staff, and with policy staff. Most offices have limited contact with partisan staff, presiding officers, and executive office staff.
Offices Communicate Most Often with Oversight Committees
Usually/Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never
Staff of oversight committee unit reports to 8 7 16 Members of oversight committee unit reports to 5 4 8 16 Policy committee staff 4 6 11 13 Policy committee chairs/members 2 2 10 21 Fiscal committee staff 7 8 13 7 Fiscal committee chairs/members 1 3 8 22 Partisan staff 1 4 28 Leadership staff 1 8 25 Presiding officers 1 2 31 Governor's office budget staff 1 2 14 18 Governor's office leadership staff 1 4 30
13 While evaluation offices wish to have their work used by their legislatures, they often maintain a degree of separation from legislators and staff while conducting their studies. Offices contact legislators and key staff most frequently during the initial request and issue selection phase of projects. Once a project topic is selected, however, offices tend to maintain more distance. Relatively few offices contact legislators and staff to discuss research design or potential recommendations.
Offices Most Often Contact Legislators and Staff During Issue Selection Phase
Usually/Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never
Initial request 21 3 7 3
Research issue selection 15 3 8 8
Research design project planning 3 2 5 25
Fieldwork 5 2 8 20
Finding/recommendation development/report drafting 2 1 3 28
Legislative program evaluation offices typically take several steps to make their legislators and the public aware of their publications. Some offices provide interim briefings to members and staff during the course of a project. About a third of offices routinely announce projects in progress. Most offices announce their reports and provide copies and/or executive summaries to legislative committees as well as individual legislators. Offices also frequently provide briefings on their work. Ten offices announce their publications on Twitter, five have a presence on Facebook, and one (Idaho) is on LinkedIn.
14 Offices Use a Variety of Communication Methods to Publicize Their Reports
Usually/Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never
Provide interim briefings to members/staff during project 4 1 11 19
Regularly release lists of projects in progress 13 2 4 16
Send emails announcing reports before released 9 4 22
Send emails announcing reports when released 29 11 4
Send reports and executive summaries to all members 23 3 9
Send reports and executive summaries to relevant committee members 27 3 2 1
Brief relevant members 10 5 12 8
Brief relevant legislative staff 5 11 12 7
Provide presentations to relevant committees 12 10 11 2
Release audiotapes or videotapes 1 34
Provide podcasts or narrated PowerPoint presentations summarizing reports 1 2 32
Legislative use of program evaluations and performance audits is often difficult to gauge, as there are many types of use, such as holding hearings, enacting bills that change public policy, modifying agency appropriations, and pressing agency managers to make needed improvements, in addition to formally adopting recommendations. Half of offices believe their reports are being used more frequently now than in the past five years, and the remaining half consider the amount of use about the same.
Evaluators believe many factors influence legislative use of their reports, with the most important being the relevance of issues and findings to legislative debate, the financial implications of the review, and media interest on the issue. Reports on issues of high interest can have more impact, especially if they are highlighted by the media. Offices reported that high-profile reports have made members more aware of and interested in their work. Engaged oversight committee chairs and new members also lead to greater use of evaluations.
Some offices thought that use of their products increased as a result of internal efforts to tighten the focus of reports and make their messages more clear through a shorter executive summary and by more communication with legislators.
One office (Colorado) has been making presentations for the past three years on unimplemented audit recommendations to all committees of reference. The presentations have increased the visibility of the office and the reports beyond legislators who serve on the Legislative Audit Committee.
15 Most offices notify the media or provide copies when issuing a new report, often by email. Some offices issue press releases or contact the media by phone to publicize new reports; there are no longer any offices that hold press conferences.
Most Offices Announce Their Published Reports to the Press
Usually/Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never
Email announcements of report publication 24 1 3 8
Email copies of published reports 11 6 10 8
Provide hard copy of report summaries 9 1 8 18
Provide hard copies of published reports 8 2 11 14
Issue press releases 8 4 1 23
Announce on social media 7 2 3 23
Make phone calls 3 7 25
Hold press conferences 35
Forty-one percent of evaluation offices reported that the media uses their reports more now than five years ago; a similar amount felt that coverage was about the same; and 15% felt that media now uses their products less.
Offices offered several reasons for increased media use. Reports about higher profile issues have increased media interest because they are more newsworthy. Legislative and public interest in accountability have also driven more media coverage. In addition, many online news sites now use evaluation reports. Revised report formats also can make it easier to generate news stories, particularly as media have cut staff. One office (Hawaii) reported “We have shortened our executive summary to one page; it is so tight that the media no longer has to read and digest our report, they just quote our summary verbatim—which gets our message out more in the format we want and reduces errors in interpretation or transposition.” Offices also credited outreach activities for increased media interest. For example, one office reported that it has built a good working relationship with media contacts by alerting them to upcoming reports, issuing press releases when a report is published, and responding in a timely way to requests for interviews.
16 Legislative Climate Because legislative evaluation offices work for and report to elected officials, they serve in a political environment even as they maintain their independence and objectivity. Changes in the political climate may affect the type of work and products that are needed to assist the legislature. For example, about a third of offices serve in states with legislative term limits; new legislators in these states may use evaluation reports to learn about ongoing problems or why specific solutions were selected for implementation. In these states, evaluation staff need to provide more frequent education about their mission and services and they may be called on more frequently as a source of institutional knowledge.
Almost a Third of Offices Serve in States with Legislative Term Limits
Yes 29% No 71%
(N=34)
In 2014, 17% of offices experienced change in the most recent election as to which party controls the legislature; in 2012 it had been 32%. Changes in administration highlight the importance of unbiased reporting and maintaining good working relationships on both sides of the aisle.
Few Offices Serve in States in Which the Controlling Party Has Recently Changed
Yes 17%
No 83%
(N=35)
17 Over a third of offices reported that their mission or authority has been expanded. New assignments included training new legislators; auditing local government programs; overseeing health plans; conducting IT security audits; staffing a fraud hotline; and administering a public testimony process on tax preference reviews. With the economy improving, fewer offices (four) experienced a viable threat to substantially downsize or merge the unit into another office.
Almost Half of Offices Reported Expanded Authority or Mission
Yes 37% No 63%
(N=35)
18 Assessment of NLPES and NCSL Services All legislative program evaluation offices and their staff are members of the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).2 The offices consider several of the organizations’ services beneficial.
Most NLPES and NCSL Services Are Considered Useful
Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful Don't Know
NLPES listserve 20 11 1 2
NLPES professional development seminar 20 7 2 5
NLPES website 7 22 2 3
NLPES newsletter 5 21 2 6
NCSL policy area contact persons 4 20 3 8
NCSL or NLPES webinars 8 13 2 5
NLPES online training resources 3 11 12 8
NCSL legislative summit 4 3 12 9
NCSL standing committees 1 7 15 11
Offices find the listserve valuable because it enables analysts starting new projects to quickly contact evaluators in other states to find out about related research. NLPES’ annual professional development seminar allows offices to share their expertise and participants to network and discuss solutions to similar challenges. The NLPES website and newsletter are also useful sources of information. For example, the newsletter includes articles on project methods and on issues that are appearing in evaluation reports across the country. Webinars have provided information on both evaluation skills and high-profile topics such as health care and education outcomes-based funding. NCSL policy area contact persons are helpful sources for multi-state information and queries on common issues.
The online training library serves two functions. It provides new analysts podcasts and PowerPoints that explain numerous aspects of planning and scoping reviews, field work, methods, writing, publishing, and presenting. The training library also posts training materials from many offices so they can be shared.
2 NLPES is a staff section within NCSL, which also has staff sections serving other types of legislative staff.
19 Part B – Profiles of NLPES Member Offices Contact information from fall 2014 survey responses
Alabama ...... Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, Operational Division ...... 22 Alaska ...... Division of Legislative Audit...... 23 Arizona ...... Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit Division ...... 24 Arkansas ...... Division of Legislative Audit...... 25 California ...... State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits ...... 26 Colorado ...... Office of the State Auditor ...... 27 Connecticut ...... Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee ...... 28 Delaware ...... Joint Sunset Committee ...... 29 Florida ...... Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability ...... 30 Georgia ...... Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Division ...... 31 Hawaii ...... Office of the Auditor ...... 32 Idaho ...... Office of Performance Evaluations ...... 33 Illinois ...... Office of the Auditor General ...... 34 Indiana ...... Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis, Legislative Services Agency ...... 35 Iowa ...... Fiscal Services Division, Legislative Services Agency ...... 36 Kansas ...... Legislative Division of Post Audit ...... 37 Kentucky ...... Program Review and Investigations Committee ...... 38 Louisiana ...... Performance Audit Services ...... 39 Maine ...... Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability ...... 40 Maryland ...... Office of Legislative Audits ...... 41 Massachusetts ...... Senate and House Post Audit and Oversight Committees ...... 42 Michigan ...... Office of the Auditor General ...... 43 Minnesota...... Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division ...... 44 Mississippi ...... Joint Legislative Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee ...... 45 Missouri ...... Joint Committee on Legislative Research, Oversight Division ...... 46 Montana ...... Legislative Audit Division...... 47 Nebraska ...... Legislative Audit Office ...... 48 Nevada ...... Legislative Counsel Bureau, Audit Division...... 49 New Hampshire ...... Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, Audit Division ...... 50 New Jersey ...... Office of the State Auditor ...... 51 New Mexico...... Legislative Finance Committee ...... 52 New York…………………….No information available ...... 53 North Carolina ...... Program Evaluation Division ...... 54 North Dakota ...... Legislative Council ...... 55 Ohio ...... Legislative Service Commission ...... 56 Oklahoma ...... Office of the State Auditor & Inspector ...... 57 Oregon ...... Legislative Fiscal Office ...... 58 Pennsylvania ...... Legislative Budget and Finance Committee...... 59 Rhode Island ...... Office of the Auditor General ...... 60 South Carolina ...... Legislative Audit Council ...... 61 South Dakota ...... Department of Legislative Audit ...... 62 Tennessee ...... Offices of Research and Education Accountability ...... 63 Texas ...... Legislative Budget Board ...... 64 Texas ...... State Auditor's Office ...... 65 Texas ...... Sunset Advisory Commission ...... 66 Utah ...... Office of the Legislative Auditor General ...... 67 Vermont ...... Legislative Council ...... 68 Virginia ...... Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission ...... 69 Washington ...... Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee ...... 70 West Virginia ...... Performance Evaluation and Research Division ...... 71 Wisconsin ...... Program Evaluation Division, Legislative Audit Bureau ...... 72 Wyoming ...... Program Evaluation Section ...... 73
21
Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, Operational Division
Created 1975
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 11 staff
Estimated Percentage of 46% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 46% Sunset reviews and/or Activities 5% Respond to other legislative requests
3% Assessments of performance measures and data
Website www.examiners.alabama.gov/
Contact John Segrest, Director
Operational Division Department of Examiners of Public Accounts P.O. Box 302251 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2251
Phone: (334) 242-9287 Email: [email protected]
22 Alaska Division of Legislative Audit
Created 2013
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 3 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 25% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 25% Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities 25% Cost-benefit analyses 25% Assessments of performance measures and data
Website www.legaudit.akleg.gov
Contact Ross Alexander, Operations Manager
Division of Legislative Audit 333 Willoughby Avenue, 6th Floor Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: (907) 465-3830 Email: [email protected]
23 Arizona Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit Division
Created 1978
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 41 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products Sunset reviews and/or Activities
Website www.azauditor.gov
Contact Kim Hildebrand, Performance Audit Manager
Performance Audit Division Office of the Auditor General 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite, 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Phone: (602) 553-0333 Email: [email protected]
24 Arkansas Division of Legislative Audit
Created 1953
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 275 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 98% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 2% Information systems audits and/or Activities
Website www.arklegaudit.gov
Contact Roger Norman, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit State Capitol 500 Woodlane Street, Suite 172 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Phone: (501) 683-8600 Email: [email protected]
25 California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits
Created Agency – 1955; Bureau of State Audits – 1993
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office (independent of the legislative and executive branches)
Staff 115 auditors trained in program and fiscal reviews
Estimated Percentage of 50% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 40% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 10% Investigations
Website www.auditor.ca.gov
Contact Margarita Fernandez, Chief of Public Affairs
Bureau of State Audits 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 445-0255 Email: [email protected]
26 Colorado Office of the State Auditor
Created 1965
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 35 conduct program evaluations 26 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 47% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 36% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 12% Review local government financial audits and other reviews 5% Technology/IT reviews
Website http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/Home?openform
Greg Fugate, Audit Manager, Professional Practice & Quality Assurance
Office of the State Auditor 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 869-2839 Email: [email protected]
27 Connecticut Staff Office of Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee
Created 1972
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 10 staff members
Estimated Percentage of 95% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 4% Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities 1% Sunset reviews
Website http://www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.asp
Contact Carrie Vibert, Director
Legislative Program Review & Investigations Committee State Capitol, Room 506 Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Phone: (860) 240-0300 Email: [email protected]
28 Delaware Joint Sunset Committee
Created 1981
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 1 analyst
Estimated Percentage of 90% Sunset reviews Workload by Products 10% Bill drafting and/or Activities
Website http://legis.delaware.gov/Legislature.nsf/Lookup/JSC_Home
Contact Joint Sunset Committee
Division of Research 411 Legislative Avenue Legislative Hall Dover, Delaware 19901
Phone: (302) 744-4114
29 Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
Created 1994
Governing Body Legislative leadership
Organizational Placement Legislative leadership
Staff 48 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 60% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 20% Outcome evaluations and/or Activities 20% Short-term policy research for members/committees
Website www.oppaga.state.fl.us
Contact Philip Twogood, Coordinator
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 111 W. Madison Street, Suite 312 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Phone: (850) 488-0021 Email: [email protected]
30 Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit Division
Created 1972
Governing Body Georgia General Assembly
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 28 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 100% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses
Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website http://www.audits.ga.gov/PAO/PAOdivision.html
Contact Leslie McGuire, Director
Performance Audit Division Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts 270 Washington Street SW, Room 1-156 Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Phone: (404) 651-8927 Email: [email protected]
31 Hawaii Office of the Auditor
Created 1965
Governing Body Legislative leadership
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 15 conduct program evaluations 2 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 40% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 25% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 15% Sunrise and sunset reviews 10% Mandatory health insurance coverage studies 5% Technology/IT reviews 5% Investigations
Website http://auditor.hawaii.gov/
Contact Rachel Hibbard, Deputy Auditor
Office of the Auditor 465 South King Street, Room 500 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0800 Email: [email protected]
32 Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations
Created 1994
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 8 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 90% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Short-term policy research for members/committees and/or Activities
Website http://legislature.idaho.gov/ope/
Contact Rakesh Mohan, Director
Office of Performance Evaluations Idaho Legislature 954 West Jefferson Street Boise, Idaho 83720
Phone: (208) 332-1470 Email: [email protected]
33 Illinois Office of the Auditor General
Created 1974
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 21 conduct program evaluations 57 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 85% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 10% Technology/IT reviews and/or Activities 5% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses
Website www.auditor.illinois.gov
Contact Jim Schlouch, Director of Performance Audits
Office of the Auditor General 740 East Ash Street Springfield, Illinois 62703-3154
Phone: (217) 782-0812 Email: [email protected]
34 Indiana Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis, Legislative Services Agency
Created 1993
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 1 conducts program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 50% Budget analysis and fiscal notes Workload by Products 30% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities 20% Staffing interim and standing committees
Contact Jim Landers, Director
Office of Fiscal & Management Analysis Legislative Services Agency 200 West Washington Street, Suite 302 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: (317) 232-9869 Email: [email protected]
35 Iowa Fiscal Services Division, Legislative Services Agency
Created 1967
Governing Body Legislative council
Organizational Placement Legislative Council, a non-partisan organization serving the entire Iowa General Assembly
Estimated Percentage of 100% Budget analysis and oversight, revenue estimating, budget Workload by Products and fiscal notes and/or Activities
Staff 17 staff members
Website https://www.legis.iowa.gov/agencies/nonpartisan/lsa/fiscalServices
Contact Holly Lyons, Division Director
Fiscal Services Division Legislative Services Agency State Capitol, Room G01 Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Phone: (515) 281-7845 Email: [email protected]
36 Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit
Created 1974
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor’s office
Staff 19 conduct program evaluations 1 conducts financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 75% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 25% Technology/IT reviews and/or Activities
Website http://www.kslpa.org/
Contact Scott Frank, Legislative Post Auditor
Legislative Division of Post Audit 800 Southwest Jackson Street, Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612
Phone: (785) 296-5180 Email: [email protected]
37 Kentucky Program Review and Investigations Committee
Created 1978
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 9 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 95% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees and/or Activities
Website www.lrc.ky.gov/Committee/statutory/Prog%20Rev/home.htm
Contact Greg Hager, Staff Administrator
Program Review and Investigations Committee 702 Capital Avenue, Capitol Annex 009 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Phone: (502) 564-8100 Email: [email protected]
38 Louisiana Performance Audit Services
Created 1994
Governing Body Independent
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 42 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 90% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Data analytics and/or Activities
Website www.lla.la.gov
Contact Nicole Edmonson, Director of Performance Audit Services
Performance Audit Services P.O. Box 94397 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
Phone: (225) 339-3983 Email: [email protected]
39 Maine Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability
Created 2005
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 6 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 60% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 38% Investigations and/or Activities 1% Technology/IT reviews 1% Assessments of performance measures and data
Website http://legislature.maine.gov/opega/
Contact Beth Ashcroft, Director
Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability Maine State Legislature 82 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333
Phone: (207) 287-1901 Email: [email protected]
40 Maryland Office of Legislative Audits
Created 1968
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 127 staff members
Estimated Percentage of 63% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 18% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities 10% Technology/IT reviews 5% Assessments of performance measures and data 3% Investigations 1% Budget analysis and fiscal notes
Website www.ola.state.md.us
Contact Tim Brooks, Director of Performance Audits
Office of Legislative Audits 301 West Preston Street, Room 1202 Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Phone: (410) 946-5900 Email: [email protected]
41 Massachusetts Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee
Website http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Senate/S48
Contact Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee Room 312A, State House Boston, Massachusette 02133
Phone: (617) 722-1572
(Additional information is not available.)
House Post Audit and Oversight Committee
Website https://malegislature.gov/Committees/House/H46
Contact House Post Audit and Oversight Committee Room 146, State House Boston, Massachusette 02133
Phone: (617) 722-2575
(Additional information is not available.)
42 Michigan Office of the Auditor General
Created 1961
Governing Body Legislative leadership
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 52 conduct program evaluations 50 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 50% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 50% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities
Website www.audgen.michigan.gov
Contact Gerald Schwandt, Assistant to the Deputy Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General 201 North Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48913
Phone: (517) 334-8050 Email: [email protected]
43 Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division
Created 1975
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 15 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 100% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/
Contact Joel Alter, Evaluation Coordinator
Office of the Legislative Auditor 140 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street, 1st Floor South St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Phone: (651) 296-8313 Email: [email protected]
44 Mississippi Joint Legislative Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee
Created 1973
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 24 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 30% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 25% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 15% Short-term policy research for members/committees 15% Legislative confirmation appointee background checks 10% Assist legislature with program budgeting efforts 5% Bill drafting
Website www.peer.state.ms.us
Contact Max Arinder, Executive Director
Legislative PEER Committee 501 North West Street, Suite 301-A Jackson, Mississippi 39215
Phone: (601) 359-1226 Email: [email protected]
45 Missouri Joint Committee on Legislative Research, Oversight Division
Created 1984
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative committee
Staff 11 staff Estimated Percentage of 60% Budget analysis and fiscal notes Workload by Products 20% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities 20% Sunset reviews
Website www.moga.mo.gov/
Contact Mickey Wilson, Director
Joint Committee on Legislative Research Room 132, State Capitol Building Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Phone: (573) 526-8120 Email: [email protected]
46 Montana Legislative Audit Division
Created 1967
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 20 conduct program evaluations 26 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 55% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 45% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities
Website www.leg.mt.gov/audit.htm
Contact Angus Maciver, Deputy Legislative Auditor
Office of the Legislative Auditor Room 160, State Capitol P.O. Box 201705 Helena, Montana 59620
Phone: (406) 444-3225 Email: [email protected]
47 Nebraska Legislative Audit Office
Created 1992
Governing Body Legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor’s office
Staff 5 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 95% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 5% Assisting with legislation to implement recommendations and/or Activities
Website http://nebraskalegislature.gov/divisions/auditor.php
Contact Martha Carter, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Office State Capitol P.O. Box 94604 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Phone: (402) 471-0072 Email: [email protected]
48 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Audit Division
Created 1949
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 25 analysts
Estimated Percentage of 80% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 5% Technology/IT reviews 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees
Website www.leg.state.nv.us/audit
Contact Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Counsel Bureau Legislative Building 401 S. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4747
Phone: (775) 684-6815 Fax: (775) 684-6435 Email: [email protected]
49 New Hampshire Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, Audit Division
Created 1987
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 10 conduct program evaluations 13 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 50% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 45% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 5% Internal control reviews using performance audit standards
Website http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/audit.aspx
Contact Stephen Fox, Performance Audit Supervisor
Legislative Budget Assistant Office, Audit Division 107 N. Main Street, Room 102 Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Phone: (603) 271-2785 Email: [email protected]
50 New Jersey Office of the State Auditor
Created 1934
Governing Body Legislative leadership
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 91 staff members
Estimated Percentage of 61% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 30% Financial/compliance audits and/or Activities 8% Information technology audits and support 1% Special projects for the legislature
Website http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/auditreports.asp
Contact Stephen Eells, State Auditor
Office of State Auditor P.O. Box 067 Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Phone: (609) 847-3470 Email: [email protected]
51 New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee
Created 1991
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative committee
Staff 12 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 65% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities 10% Cost-benefit analyses 9% Technology/IT reviews 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees 1% Investigations
Website http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lfc/lfcdefault.aspx
Contact Charles Sallee, Deputy Director for Program Evaluation
New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee 325 Don Gaspar, Suite 101 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Phone: (505) 986-4528 Fax: (505) 986-4545 Email: [email protected]
52 New York
No information is available.
53 North Carolina Program Evaluation Division
Created 2007
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 14 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 90% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 8% Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities 2% Descriptive reports
Website http://www.ncleg.net/PED
Contact John Turcotte, Director
Program Evaluation Division North Carolina General Assembly Legislative Office Building, Suite 100 300 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone: (919) 301-1399 Email: [email protected]
54 North Dakota Legislative Council
Created 1965
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Fiscal division of a non-partisan legislative services agency
Staff 20 staff conduct studies, provide legal advice, fiscal and technical assistance, and supervise publication of laws and codes
Website www.legis.nd.gov/council/
Contact Jim Smith, Director
Legislative Council State Capitol 600 E. Boulevard Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0360
Phone: (701) 328-2916 Fax: (701) 328-3615 Email: [email protected]
55 Ohio Legislative Service Commission
Created 1953
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff Attorneys, budget analysts, economists, research associates, and support personnel
Workload Products and/or Drafting, fiscal, research, training, and other technical services Activities
Website http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/
Contact Mark Flanders, Director Ohio Legislative Service Commission
Vern Riffe Center 77 South High Street, Ninth Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-6136
Phone: (614) 466-3615
56 Oklahoma Office of the State Auditor & Inspector
Website www.sai.ok.gov
Contact Lisa Hodges, Deputy State Auditor for State Agency Audits, Information Services, and Specialized Audits Office of State Auditor & Inspector
State Capitol 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Phone: (405) 522-6443 Email: [email protected]
(Additional information is not available.)
57 Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office
Created 1959
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 21 conduct program evaluations 5 conduct financial audits on a part-time basis
Estimated Percentage of 70% Budget analysis and fiscal notes Workload by Products 5% Assessments of performance measures and data and/or Activities 5% Short-term policy research 5% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses 5% Outcome audits and/or evaluations 5% Technology/IT reviews 5% Bill drafting
Website https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lfo
Contact Ken Rocco, Legislative Fiscal Officer
Oregon Legislative Services 900 Court Street, Northeast Room H-178 Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: (503) 986-1844 Email: [email protected]
58 Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
Created 1959
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 12 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 100% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us
Contact Philip Durgin, Executive Director
Legislative Budget & Finance Committee P.O. Box 8737 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Phone: (717) 783-1600 Email: [email protected]
59 Rhode Island Office of the Auditor General
Created: 1974
Website www.oag.state.ri.us/
Contact Office of the Auditor General
State of Rhode Island 86 Weybosset Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Phone: (401) 222-2435 Email: [email protected]
(Additional information is not available.)
60 South Carolina Legislative Audit Council
Created 1975
Governing Body Council of citizens
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 22 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 100% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website http://lac.sc.gov/
Contact Earle Powell, Director
Legislative Audit Council South Carolina General Assembly 1331 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 315 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone: (803) 253-7612 Email: [email protected]
61 South Dakota Department of Legislative Audit
Created 1943
Governing Body Legislative research council
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 33 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of 100% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website http://legislativeaudit.sd.gov/home.htm
Contact Martin Guindon, Auditor General
Department of Legislative Audit c/o 500 E. Capitol Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Phone: (605) 773-3595 Email: [email protected]
62 Tennessee Offices of Research and Education Accountability
Created 1992
Governing Body Comptroller
Organizational Placement Auditor’s office
Staff 11 conduct policy research
Estimated Percentage of 40% Short-term policy research for members/committees Workload by Products 35% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities 25% Budget analysis and fiscal notes
Website http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/OREA/
Contact Phillip Doss, Director
Research and Education Accountability 505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700 Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0268
Phone: (615) 401-7869 Email: [email protected]
63 Texas Legislative Budget Board
Created 1949
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 34 staff members
Estimated Percentage of Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities Cost-benefit analyses Budget analysis and fiscal notes Bill drafting
Website http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/
Contact Julie Ivie, Assistant Director
Legislative Budget Board 1501 North Congress, Suite 501 Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (512) 463-5655 Email: [email protected]
64 Texas State Auditor's Office
Created 1929
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 166 conduct financial audits
Estimated Percentage of Financial/ compliance audits Workload by Products Performance audits/program evaluations/policy analyses and/or Activities Investigations Assessments of performance measures and data Technology/IT reviews Budget analysis and fiscal notes
Website www.sao.state.tx.us
Contact Kelly Linder, Assistant State Auditor
Audit Research & Legislative Coordination State Auditor’s Office 1501 North Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78711
Phone: (512) 936-9500 Email: [email protected]
65 Texas Sunset Advisory Commission
Created 1977
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 26 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 100% Sunset reviews Workload by Products and/or Activities
Website https://www.sunset.texas.gov/
Contact Jennifer Jones, Deputy Director
Sunset Advisory Committee P.O. Box 13066 Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-1300 Email: [email protected]
66 Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General
Created 1976
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 28 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 35% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 20% Outcome audits and/or evaluations and/or Activities 10% Financial/compliance audits 10% Cost-benefit analyses 10% Technology/IT reviews 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees 5% Assessments of performance measures and data 5% Investigations
Website http://le.utah.gov/audit/olag.htm
Contact Wayne Kidd, Audit Manager
Office of the Legislative Auditor General W315 State Capitol Complex Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Phone: (801) 538-1033 Email: [email protected]
67 Vermont Legislative Council
Created 1971
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative research and drafting unit
Work Products Legal drafting and research office; does not conduct performance audits or evaluations
Website http://legislature.vermont.gov/staff-and-offices/staff- offices/legislative-council/
Contact Vermont Legislative Council 115 State Street, Drawer 33 Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5301
Phone: (802) 828-2208 Email: [email protected]
68 Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
Created 1974
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 28 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 94% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 5% Research, special projects, and committee work and/or Activities 1% Budget analysis and fiscal notes
Website http://jlarc.virginia.gov/
Contact Hal Greer, Director
Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission 201 North 9th Street Suite 1100, General Assembly Building, Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
Phone: (804) 786-1258 Email: [email protected]
69 Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
Created 1973
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Independent legislative unit
Staff 21 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 90% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Sunset reviews and/or Activities
Website http://jlarc.leg.wa.gov
Contact Keenan Konopaski, Legislative Auditor
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee P.O. Box 40910 Olympia, Washington 98504
Phone: (360) 786-5187 Email: [email protected]
70 West Virginia Performance Evaluation and Research Division
Created 1994
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 18 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 90% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Best practice reviews and/or Activities 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees
Website www.legis.state.wv.us/joint/PERD/perd.cfm
Contact John Sylvia, Director
Performance Evaluation and Research Division State Capitol Complex Building I, Room 314-W Charleston, West Virginia 25305
Phone: (304) 347-4890 Email: [email protected]
71 Wisconsin Program Evaluation Division, Legislative Audit Bureau
Created Agency – 1965; program evaluation-- 1979
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Auditor's office
Staff 18 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 55% Financial/compliance audits Workload by Products 30% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses and/or Activities 5% Short-term policy research for members/committees 5% Best practices reviews 5% Investigations
Website www.legis.wisconsin.gov/LAB/
Contact Joe Chrisman, State Auditor
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 500 Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: (608) 266-2818 Email: [email protected]
72 Wyoming Legislative Program Evaluation Section
Created 1971
Governing Body Joint legislative committee
Organizational Placement Legislative oversight committee
Staff 7 conduct program evaluations
Estimated Percentage of 80% Performance audits, program evaluations, policy analyses Workload by Products 10% Budget analyses and fiscal notes and/or Activities 5% Outcome audits and/or evaluations 5% Cost-benefit analyses
Website http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LSOWeb/ProgramEval/ProgramEval.aspx
Contact Michael Swank, Program Evaluation Manager
Program Evaluation Section Legislative Services Office 213 Capitol Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Phone: (307) 777-7881 Email: [email protected]
73